From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jun 19 19:45:35 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FAEC37B401
	for <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:45:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns.nojabrsk.ru (ns.nojabrsk.ru [213.141.244.3])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8933943F3F
	for <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 19 Jun 2003 19:45:33 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from s_porotnikov@nojabrsk.ru)
Received: from sergeyco.nojabrsk.ru (sergeyco.nojabrsk.ru [213.141.244.12])
	by ns.nojabrsk.ru (8.12.8/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h5K2jUtJ055320
	for <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>;
	Fri, 20 Jun 2003 08:45:31 +0600 (YEKST)
	(envelope-from s_porotnikov@nojabrsk.ru)
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 08:45:28 +0600
From: s_porotnikov@nojabrsk.ru
X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.61)
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <1291187545875.20030620084528@nojabrsk.ru>
To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: freebsd-performance Digest, Vol 4, Issue 9
X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: s_porotnikov@nojabrsk.ru
List-Id: Performance/tuning <freebsd-performance.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>,
	<mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>,
	<mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 02:45:35 -0000

> Interestingly enough, I found FreeBSD 4.8 to be faster at local disk
> writes than FreeBSD 5.1.  About 50% faster.
On my system results of tests with FreeBSD 4.8 and FreeBSD
5.1 about same. Of course I used UFS2 filesystem on FreeBSD 5.1.

> RAID0 is not really RAID since it does not provide any redundancy.
I am understand. But I executed performance test. So redundancy may be
achieved (in many cases) through elementary backup in simple case or
VINUM mirror in other cases. I tested RAID 1+0 - results are identical.
I not tested RAID-5 because now hard disks have low cost and using RAID-5
(on practice but not in theory) is unjustified. In many cases for low end
solution, used hardware RAID-5 without expensive RAID controllers, having
battery cache memory, bring to data loss.

-- 
Best regards,
 Sergey G. Porotnikov                    mailto:s_porotnikov@nojabrsk.ru